• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

Conservative said:
Don't think you want to go there but please be my guest, Reagan took over with a misery index at 19.33 and declining employment. By the end of his third year there was a net job gain and the misery index was declining significantly unlike it is today which is rising.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot Liberal Rule #1.......republicans are responsible for 100% of what happens to the Country, from the day they are inaugurated to the day they leave office........liberal presidents inherit all of the problems during their term and they aren't accountable for anything, unless it's a good thing that happens.
 
PeteEU said:
So you claim that the number of 15 year olds entering the work force exceed the number of retired persons? And you can of course prove this right?
Click to expand...

Current estimates are 4 million new retirees per year, and the US births/year have been about 4 million a year for the last 15 years.
 
AdamT said:
What I understand is that Obama had little or nothing to do with the creation of the Great Recession. Nor, for that matter, did the Congress of '07-'08. The recession was a result of absurd housing contracts that were formed largely formed between 2002 and 2006.
Click to expand...

revisionist history is what you are good at, all in an attempt to divert from the Obama record which will be on the ballot in 2012. The housing contracts go back much further than 2002 but your biased, partisan position won't allow you to accept that. What you want to ignore is we are three years into the Obama Administration and if any Republican had generated these numbers you would be going ballistic
 
Conservative said:
Don't think you want to go there but please be my guest, Reagan took over with a misery index at 19.33 and declining employment. By the end of his third year there was a net job gain and the misery index was declining significantly unlike it is today which is rising.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we can all play this game, right? The average misery index under Reagan was 12.19. Under Obama? 10.72. Thus, according to your logic, Obama is the better president. :shrug:

And, btw, it is falling -- not rising.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Well, I guess we can all play this game, right? The average misery index under Reagan was 12.19. Under Obama? 10.72. Thus, according to your logic, Obama is the better president. :shrug:
Click to expand...

wow you totally missed that one!
 
Gill said:
You said the opposite. You stated that "growing population means squat".
Click to expand...

And it does. What matters is how many over 15 enter the work force, either "natural born" or immigrants. The population can go up or fall, it is irrelevant number in the end since it does not distinguish between age. The population can grow with 10 million but if they all are new borns, then they wont do squat on the present work force numbers... wait 15 years and then they will.
 
AdamT said:
Well, I guess we can all play this game, right? The average misery index under Reagan was 12.19. Under Obama? 10.72. Thus, according to your logic, Obama is the better president. :shrug:

And, btw, it is falling -- not rising.
Click to expand...

The misery index dropped from 19.33 in January 1981 to 11.77 in November 1983 and continued downward throughout the Reagan term. It has gone up during the Obama term
 
AdamT said:
Well, I guess we can all play this game, right? The average misery index under Reagan was 12.19. Under Obama? 10.72. Thus, according to your logic, Obama is the better president. :shrug:

And, btw, it is falling -- not rising.
Click to expand...

1980: 20.67
1988: 9.57

2009: 8.92
2011: 12.53

:shrug:
 
Samhain said:
Current estimates are 4 million new retirees per year, and the US births/year have been about 4 million a year for the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

10.000+ and growing baby boomers retire each day. Yes 15 years ago there was about 10k a day born in the US... but as I said.. the baby boomers retire numbers will just go up almost exponentionally, where as the birth rate wont.
 
PeteEU said:
And it does. What matters is how many over 15 enter the work force, either "natural born" or immigrants. The population can go up or fall, it is irrelevant number in the end since it does not distinguish between age. The population can grow with 10 million but if they all are new borns, then they wont do squat on the present work force numbers... wait 15 years and then they will.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so you believe there are periods of great birth rates, where in 15 (it's actually 16) years they become part of the workforce. This is followed by periods of low birth rates resulting in few entering the job market 16 years later????

:roll:
 
PeteEU said:
And it does. What matters is how many over 15 enter the work force, either "natural born" or immigrants. The population can go up or fall, it is irrelevant number in the end since it does not distinguish between age. The population can grow with 10 million but if they all are new borns, then they wont do squat on the present work force numbers... wait 15 years and then they will.
Click to expand...

90,000 jobs are needed each month just to keep up with population growth

Calculated Risk: How many jobs are needed over the next year to keep the unemployment rate steady?
 
Conservative said:
The misery index dropped from 19.33 in January 1981 to 11.77 in November 1983 and continued downward throughout the Reagan term. It has gone up during the Obama term
Click to expand...

Now you've done it........... you'll have to explain trend lines to him now.
 
conservativeguy said:
I think you forgot Liberal Rule #1.......republicans are responsible for 100% of what happens to the Country, from the day they are inaugurated to the day they leave office........liberal presidents inherit all of the problems during their term and they aren't accountable for anything, unless it's a good thing that happens.
Click to expand...

Conservative rule 1.

Deny everything and blame everyone else.
 
Conservative said:
revisionist history is what you are good at, all in an attempt to divert from the Obama record which will be on the ballot in 2012. The housing contracts go back much further than 2002 but your biased, partisan position won't allow you to accept that. What you want to ignore is we are three years into the Obama Administration and if any Republican had generated these numbers you would be going ballistic
Click to expand...

Actual history. You could argue that it started in 2000, but the real acceleration, and the vast bulk of the damage, was done between 2002 and 2006. Unfortunately Congress did not have a time machine to go back and undo what was already done.

subprime-mortgage-origination-volume.jpg
 
Gill said:
Now you've done it........... you'll have to explain trend lines to him now.
Click to expand...

Except his statement isn't true. There have been declines during Obama's term - in fact, the latest posting was a decline. Doh!

Rhapsody1447 said:
1980: 20.67
1988: 9.57


2009: 8.92
2011: 12.53


:shrug:
Click to expand...

Don't worry about context or anything. LOL Bad
 
AdamT said:
Actual history. You could argue that it started in 2000, but the real acceleration, and the vast bulk of the damage, was done between 2002 and 2006. Unfortunately Congress did not have a time machine to go back and undo what was already done.

subprime-mortgage-origination-volume.jpg
Click to expand...

yep, because Barney Frank took Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae under his wing and protected them from the reforms Bush tried to make. The housing bubble burst in 2006, which was the beginning of the downturn.
 
Gill said:
Now you've done it........... you'll have to explain trend lines to him now.
Click to expand...

Trend lines? I thought you just cared about averages? :2rofll:
 
AdamT said:
Well, I guess we can all play this game, right? The average misery index under Reagan was 12.19. Under Obama? 10.72. Thus, according to your logic, Obama is the better president. :shrug:

And, btw, it is falling -- not rising.
Click to expand...

If you average the gippers first three years in office his misery index comes up a whopping 15.55.Kinda sad that st reagan has that to contend with.I guess we can forget the Rushmore thinggie.:mrgreen:



The United States Misery Index By Year
 
whysoserious said:
Except his statement isn't true. There have been declines during Obama's term - in fact, the latest posting was a decline. Doh!



Don't worry about context or anything. LOL Bad
Click to expand...

Have no clue where you got that idea.
 
AdamT said:
Actual history. You could argue that it started in 2000, but the real acceleration, and the vast bulk of the damage, was done between 2002 and 2006. Unfortunately Congress did not have a time machine to go back and undo what was already done.

subprime-mortgage-origination-volume.jpg
Click to expand...

What exactly was the Democrat position on subprime mortgages? Keep digging and continue to divert from the Hope and Change President and his disastrous results.
 
Gill said:
yep, because Barney Frank took Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae under his wing and protected them from the reforms Bush tried to make. The housing bubble burst in 2006, which was the beginning of the downturn.
Click to expand...

Not according to Republican Mike Oxley, who reached out to Barney Frank to help pass Freddie and Fannie reform in the House. According to Oxley, it was Bush who reached out to kill the reform measure in the Senate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom